Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
Currently, most codes for structural concrete are oriented
to design of new structures. Yet assessing the strength of
existing structures (and their retrofitting, if necessary) is
becoming more and more a relevant task for structural
engineers. This is influencing codes of practice, which start
incorporating new concepts related to life cycle design1 or
evaluation and assessment.2,3 Grounding codes of practice
on physical models reveals to be an efficient manner to cover
both aspects, as design can be performed by assuming safe
and simple hypotheses, which can be refined if necessary for
an assessment.4
Although the same physical models can be used for design
and for assessment, the use that is made of these models
can be very different depending on what type of analysis
is performed. The design of a new structure should cover
its ability to carry the design actions (safe solution at ultimate limit state [ULS]) as well as its suitable behavior
under service loads (satisfactory behavior for cracking or
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2015
605
in Fig. 2(a), the structure can develop a licit failure mechanism (Fig. 2(b)) and is thus an exact solution (if the structure
has sufficient ductility). Such a solution can be considered
as the best potential stress field that can be developed for the
assessment of an existing structure, as it is the one providing
the largest strength of all potential lower bounds (safe solutions). Even if the strengthening cannot be avoided with
the most refined estimate of the strength (exact solution), it
can be minimized, providing significant potential savings to
the operation.
In this paper, various strategies for developing suitable
stress fields and strut-and-tie models for design and assessment of structural concrete members are presented and
discussed with reference to some examples. The concepts
are explained from a general perspective, although the application will be limited to two-dimensional cases (walls and
beams). The accuracy of limit analysis is finally compared to
available test data showing the consistency of the approach
and its generality.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper presents a discussion on the conceptual differences for the approaches that should be followed when
performing the design of a new structure and the assessment of an existing structural member using stress fields and
strut-and-tie models. For structural concrete (members with
sufficient ductility), it is shown that limit analysis and its
theorems can be consistently used for both purposes, and
a number of tailored procedures (both using hand-made or
computer-based procedures) are presented and discussed.
The suitability of limit analysis is finally validated in a
systematic manner by assessing the strength of test results
on a wide number of structural members and failure modes.
STRESS FIELDS AND STRUT-AND-TIE MODELS
As previously explained, stress fields and strut-and-tie
models share a common root as they are grounded on limit
analysis. However, the methods and their application have
a number of differences, each of them presenting some
specific advantages.
Fig. 3Behavior of materials: (a) rigid-plastic steel; (b) elastic-plastic steel; and (c) elastic-plastic cracked concrete.
Truss models, which can be considered ancestors of
strut-and-tie models, were first developed on the basis of
intuition for beams.10,11 Truss models allowed calculating
a possible equilibrium solution where the inner forces of a
truss developing inside the concrete element equilibrate the
external actions (refer, for instance, to Fig. 1(b)). Compression forces were supposed to be carried by concrete and
tension by the reinforcement (thus allowing consistent
design). Truss models were later developed and generalized.
In Stuttgart,12-14 it was shown that there was no need for the
load-carrying model to be an actual truss and that funicular
models in equilibrium with the applied actions were suitable, leading to the development of the strut-and-tie models.
These works also opened an approach where the location
of the strut and the ties was proposed to be inspired on the
elastic uncracked stress field of a member. Such an approach
was very convenient at that time because elastic uncracked
internal forces could be calculated with available procedures
(photoelasticity or linear FEM). The consistency of strutand-tie models with the lower-bound theorem of limit analysis was also investigated,14 as well as automatic procedures
for developing suitable strut-and-tie models.15
The stress fields originated on a different basis, based
directly on the theory of plasticity. This theory can be
grounded on the works of Gvozdev (published in English
in 196016), who first formulated consistently the concepts
of the yield surface, upper- and lower-bound solutions, and
the flow rule. The theory was later developed and was used
in 1961 by Drucker7 to develop a stress field for a simply
supported beam under point load (Fig. 2(a)) or distributed
loading. The stress fields were later developed particularly in
Denmark6 and Switzerland,17 leading to a consistent method
for design of concrete structures.
For their use in practice, each method has its advantages. Using them in a combined manner is probably the
most suitable approach for the designer, as both are in fact
different manners of expressing the same physical reality.
For instance, stress fields provide a detailed description
of the stress state of the member (Fig. 1(a)). They allow
determining the width of the compression fields or struts,
thus calculating the stresses developing in the concrete to
compare them to the concrete strength (Fig. 1(a)). Also,
they allow understanding and identifying the location where
smeared reinforcement is to be arranged. The development of stress fields is thus particularly useful for detailing
(required space for the struts, reinforcement bents, stresses
in the nodal regions) and to account for variable angle of
the compression fields (fan or constant-angle compression
fcp = fc fc
f
fc = c 0
fc
1/ 3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8 + 170 1
607
Fig. 4Development of equilibrium solutions based on simple load-carrying models (values provided in Table 1): (a) investigated member; (b) analysis as dapped-end beam; (c) and (d) consideration of contribution of column and beam around
opening; (e) combined model; and (f) required reinforcement to carry loads and welded wire of minimum reinforcement.
where 1 refers to the principal transverse strain of concrete.
This strain can be calculated when the materials are assumed
to behave with an elastic phase prior to reaching their plastic
plateau.18 When the materials are assumed to behave in a
rigid-plastic manner (typically useful for hand-made calculations), the value of parameter is set depending on the
cracking state and orientation1,8 (1.0 for uncracked concrete,
0.8 for concrete cracked parallel to the loading direction, 0.6
for diagonally cracked concrete as in shear, and 0.4 for large
plastic strains in two directions as shear near plastic hinges).
The influence of other phenomena on the compressive
strength of concrete can also be accounted; for instance, the
presence of ducts21,22 or the influence of sustained loading.23
DESIGN OF NEW STRUCTURES
As previously explained, design of new elements should be
performed to obtain safe structures at ULS with satisfactory
behavior at SLS24 and with a reinforcement layout as simple
as possible for its construction and control. Developing
suitable stress fields or strut-and-tie models to that aim can
be performed following a number of strategies. Four possibilities are presented hereafter, but others (or combinations
of them) can also apply. The selection of the most suitable
approach for a given case is usually decided by the designer,
depending on his or her experience, the complexity of the
problem, and the required level of accuracy of theanalysis.
Load-carrying models inspired on experience or
on similar cases found in literature
Very often, design of a new structural member can be
performed by assimilating it to a known case. This, for
instance, is shown in Fig. 4(a) (beam with an opening). This
608
kN
kip
C1
946
213
C2
632
142
C3
911
205
C4
597
134
C5
1460
328
S1
691
155
S2
620
139
S3
593
133
C6
665
149
C7
638
143
C8
844
190
C9
576
129
C10
322
72
C11
207
47
C12
248
56
C13
591
133
C14
837
188
C15
606
136
C16
1460
328
S4
99
22
S5
289
65
S6
691
155
S7
311
70
S8
461
104
S9
83
19
S10
433
97
kN
kip
C1
994
223
C2
1460
328
S1
691
155
C3
634
143
C4
845
190
C5
575
129
C6
644
145
C7
871
196
C8
606
136
S2
510
115
S3
510
155
anchorage of tension ties. For instance, Fig.6(c) presents a load-carrying model where the vertical tension
tie is anchored within the element and not at its edge.
As experimentally shown by Maxwell and Breen,28 this
may lead to development of wide cracks on top of the
anchorage region because the strut tends to occupy all
available concrete (unreinforced region of anchorage of
the vertical tie; refer to region C in Fig. 6(d)), which
cracks in an uncontrolled manner.
610
Asi , j = Asi , j 1
si
Asi ,min
f yi
nevertheless be considered as part of the load-carrying mechanism for an assessment as it increases the strength of the
member in a potentially non-negligible manner.32 In addition, design based on lower-bound solutions according to
limit analysis (as stress fields or strut-and-tie models) implies
that more efficient load-carrying models may develop within
the member for the available geometry andreinforcement.
In case conventional analyses do not allow ensuring sufficient strength with respect to the design actions, refined
estimates of the strength are required. In this case, the
best lower-bound solution that can be selected is the exact
solution according to limit analysis, which provides the
maximum strength of all possible lower-bounds. Different
techniques can be used to obtain the exact solution. In the
following, two approaches will be examined: the former
based on rigid-plastic stress fields and the latter based on
elastic-plastic stress fields. To that aim, the strength of the
previous element (Fig. 4(a)) will be assessed with each
approach for the reinforcement layout designed according
to the strut-and-tie inspired on simple load-carrying models
(Fig. 4(f)).
Development of exact solutions based on rigidplastic stress fields and mechanisms
The use of rigid-plastic stress fields combined with mechanisms for the search of an exact solution has been discussed
by Muttoni et al.33 It can be performed by first selecting a
licit collapse mechanism (upper-bound solution) whose free
bodies are separated by discrete cracks and concrete hinges
(refer to Fig. 9(a)). According to the upper-bound approach
of rigid-plastic limit analysis (mechanism), all reinforcement crossing the cracks reaches its yield strength so that
tie forces at ultimate limit state can be calculated easily
(Fig. 9(b), where concrete is assumed to carry no tensile
stress). The contact zones between the free bodies can be
considered compression zones where the struts or nodal
regions develop (Fig. 9(c) through (e)).
There are basically two methods to calculate the loadcarrying capacity related to a given mechanism. The first one
is based on the principle of virtual work, where the work of
external loads (sum of scalar product of external forces and
related displacements) is equal to the internal plastic dissipation (sum of all reinforcement yielding forces and concrete
forces multiplied by their elongation or shortenings). In
the second method, the equilibrium of every free body is
treatedseparately.
With respect to the second method, solving the equilibrium equations of every free body can be performed in an
easy manner by following an iterative procedure. Alternatively, the contact forces between the free bodies can be
determined without the need of performing any iterations by
solving a system of equations relating all implied variables.
Details and implementation of such procedures is thoroughly
explained in Appendix A* for the investigated wall presented
in Fig. 4(f) (refer also to Table 3 for results).
*
The Appendix is available at www.concrete.org/publications in PDF format,
appended to the online version of the published paper. It is also available in hard copy
from ACI headquarters for a fee equal to the cost of reproduction plus handling at the
time of the request.
611
Fig. 9Assessment of strength using rigid-plastic mechanisms (values provided in Table 3): (a) failure mechanism; (b) and (c)
analysis of rigid bodies of mechanism; (d) and (e) analysis of critical struts; (f) Cremona diagram and thrust line inside rigid
body; and (g) corresponding strut-and-tie model.
The load-carrying capacity QR of the selected mechanism
(Fig. 9(a)), calculated by any of the previous procedures, is
still not proven to correspond to that of the exact solution
according to limit analysis, as other potential mechanisms
(Fig. 10(a), for instance) can develop. As this procedure
is based on the upper-bound theorem of limit analysis, the
exact load-carrying capacity QR,exact could be lower than
the calculated value QR. An interesting approach to verify
if the selected mechanism corresponds to the exact solution can be performed by combining both theorems of limit
analysis. As stated by Drucker7: Agreement of upper and
lower bounds proves that the load carrying capacity is exactly
halved. This procedure can be seen as an optimization
where the criterion is related to the load-carryingcapacity.
In the current example, this can be done by investigating
the internal equilibrium of all bodies as well as the strengths
of steel and concrete elements using strut-and-tie or stress
fields models. This is, for instance, shown in Fig. 9(g) for
the reinforcement layout of Fig. 4(f) (inspired by simple
load-carrying models). A suitable strategy can consist in
developing, within the free bodies, the previously calculated internal forces acting on the edges of the free bodies.
Starting from force CAD on concrete body A (Fig. 9(b)), the
first node NA1 can be set at the intersection with the lower
reinforcement, whose force SAB3 deviates the strut. Nodal
equilibrium can be solved analytically or graphically using
force diagrams. In this case, the second approach allows
following the strut and its deviation at every reinforcement,
until the internal force CAB on the opposite side is reached.
Provided that the compression fields remain within concrete
612
Free
body
Force
name
First iteration
(equilibrium not fulfilled)
Final iteration
(equilibrium fulfilled)
kN
kip
kN
kip
SAB1
273
61
273
61
SAB2
437
98
437
98
SAB3
273
61
273
61
SAB4
481
108
481
108
CAB,X
754
169
897
201
CAB,Y
71
16
28
CAD,X
143
32
CAD,Y
639
143
738
165
SAB1
273
61
273
61
SAB2
437
98
437
98
SAB3
273
61
273
61
SAB4
481
108
481
108
SBC1
295
66
295
66
SBC2
295
66
295
66
CAB,X
754
169
897
201
CAB,Y
71
16
28
CBC,X
590
132
447
100
CBC,Y
122
27
R2U,X
R2U,Y
1150
259
1548
348
QU,X
QU,Y
1789
402
2408
540
SCD1
295
66
295
66
SCD2
295
66
295
66
SBC1
295
66
295
66
SBC2
295
66
295
66
CBC,X
590
132
447
100
CBC,Y
122
27
CCD,X
590
132
447
100
CCD,Y
122
27
SCD1
295
66
295
66
SCD2
295
66
295
66
CAD,X
143
32
CAD,Y
639
144
738
165
CCD,X
590
132
447
100
CCD,Y
122
27
R1U,X
R1U,Y
639
144
860
192
613
614
His research interests include the applicability of stress fields for design and
assessment of structural concrete.
REFERENCES
1. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Fdration Internationale du Bton, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2013, 434 pp.
2. ACI Committee 437, Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete
Buildings (ACI 437R-03), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2003, 28 pp.
3. ACI Committee 364, Guide for Evaluation of Concrete Structures
before Rehabilitation (ACI 364.1R-07), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2007, 18 pp.
4. Muttoni, A., and Fernndez Ruiz, M., Levels-of-Approximation
Approach in Codes of Practice, Structural Engineering International,
V.22, No. 2, 2012, pp. 190-194. doi: 10.2749/101686612X13291382990688
5. SIA 269:2011, Existing Structures Bases, Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects, Zurich, Switzerland, 2011, 28 pp.
6. Nielsen, M. P., and Hoang, L. C., Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity, third edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2011, 796 pp.
7. Drucker, D. C., On Structural Concrete and the Theorems of Limit
Analysis, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Zrich, Switzerland, 1961, 36 pp.
8. Muttoni, A.; Schwartz, J.; and Thrlimann, B., Design of Concrete
Structures with Stress Fields, Birkhuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin, Switzerland, 1997, 143 pp.
9. Chen, W.-F., and Han, D.-J., Plasticity for Structural Engineers,
J.Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2007, 255 pp.
10. Ritter, W., Die Bauweise Hennebique, Schweizerische Bauzeitung,
V. 33, No. 7, 1899, pp. 41-61.
11. Mrsch, E., Der Eisenbetonbau, seine Theorie und Anwendung, third
edition, Verlag von Konrad Wittwer, Hamburg, Germany, 1908, 376 pp.
12. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., Wandartige Trger, Deutscher Ausschuss fr Stahlbeton, Berlin, Germany, 1966, 159 pp.
13. Schlaich, J., and Weischede, D., Ein praktisches Verfahren zum
methodischen Bemessen und Konstruieren im Stahlbetonbau, Bulletin
dInformation No. 150, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne,
Switzerland, 1982, 163 pp.
14. Schlaich, J.; Schfer, K.; and Jennewein, M., Toward a Consistent Design of Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, V. 32, No. 3, 1987,
pp.74-150. doi: 10.15554/pcij.05011987.74.150
15. Biondini, F.; Bontempi, F.; and Malerba, P. G., Stress Path Adapting
Strut-and-Tie Models in Cracked and Uncracked R.C. Elements, Structural Engineering & Mechanics, V. 12, No. 6, 2001, pp. 685-698. doi:
10.12989/sem.2001.12.6.685
16. Gvozdev, A. A., The Determination of the Value of the Collapse
Load for Statically Indeterminate Systems Undergoing Plastic Deformation, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, V. 1, No. 4, 1960,
pp.322-335. doi: 10.1016/0020-7403(60)90051-5
17. Thrlimann, B.; Marti, P.; Pralong, J.; Ritz, P.; and Zimmerli, B.,
Anwendung der Plastizittstheorie auf Stahlbeton, Institut fr Baustatik
und Konstruction, ETH Zrich, 1983, 252 pp.
18. Fernndez Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A., On Development of Suitable
Stress Fields for Structural Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, V. 104,
No.4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 495-502.
615
NOTES:
616